Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Feb 2007 11:12 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <45D9BE29.3BC9D991(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> >On Sat, 17 Feb 07 14:08:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > > >> >>Why real time? > >> > > >> > Because it is processed, compressed video data. > >> >It has to be processed to be rendered by the video card. > >> > >> That's not real time. Real time implies that the image has > >> to be display in the same instant that the image was first > >> made. What you guys are talking about is a sequential process. > >> It doesn't matter when the bits are created on your system as > >> long as they are sequential. > > > >Real time involves doing it at the same *rate* as the material originated. > > No. That is not how the biz defines it. Real time implies > acutal time, not sequence rates. You are just plain wrong. Yet again. The industry does not define real time like that at all. Commodity video playback is a _canonical_ example of a soft real time application. But, as always, you probably prefer to remain ignorant of such things. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Feb 2007 11:24 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87abz9kp2r.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >I shudder to think how old my dually celeron 300 is. And that's > >not just "capable", that's populated. > > > >The reason almost all PCs aren't dually is not because PCs > >can't be dually, it's because that's what the market wants. > > That's not the reason. Devices aren't multi-ported. To have > an effective multi-CPU general purpose system, all CPUs should > have hardware access to all devices. Woh, weird, and there I was thinking that someone had invented things like crossbars and things like bus arbitration. I must have been hallucinating. > Another limitation is > no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys connected to it. Weird. I must have been hallusinating when I saw the 8-port serial card in the lab PC last decade. With 8 things hooked up to it, of course. > >Those who strive for more than mediocrity in their PC have > >been able to find duallies quite easily for a decade. > > But are the device drivers reentrant? If they aren't, the > multi-CPU systems aren't as useful as they could be. Such considerations are important, but a SMoP. My Celeron box was running a commercial grade unix, and MP support was nothing special in those days at all, as big boxes have been MP since forever and a day. (Which is why Cutler's gang made NT MP-capable, as his background was with real machines.) Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Feb 2007 11:35 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87irdym3zz.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> MassiveProng wrote: > >> > >> > I can boot Linux from a DVD and RUN it all day long, and I don't need to > do > >> > ANY installation! > >> > >> That sounds interesting. > >> > >> Where can I get one ? > > > >Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu all come as live CDs > >Gentoo does too. > >Knoppix was the original popular live CD. > > What does the OS, running from a CD, use for its scratch pad? > <snip> RAM. Most of them have been designed to specifically not touch your existing HD partitions unless you explicitly ask them to. Some will perform only reads, such as reading the partition table, so that you can later mount detected drives. Some will also mount the drives for you, which I don't consider to be a feature. Many have the option of pre-loading the SQUASHFS image off the CDROM, so that you can umount the disk you booted from. That requires gobs of RAM, obviously. When I was living away from home, and away from my home number-crunchers, I bought 3 diskless PCs, and booted them all from CD (Knoppix, didn't particularly like it, but there were fewer to chose from back then). They were networked together using NFS, and one of them had a USB key for non-ephemeral storage. It worked great - there was no need for any hard disk at all. That kept the noise and leccy bill low. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Feb 2007 11:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <ercret$dg2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <erc8n2$8ss_006(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <877iufp05h.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >[....] > >>>You've forgotten about your "interfering with each other" clause: > >> > >>Not at all. OSes were handling the above problems in the 60s. > >>The reason virtual memory was invented was to solve the above > >>problem. > > > >I think you and Phil are using a different mean of "interfering". Phil is > >thinking of it in the sense of a real time OS. > > Phil is very confused about real time. Nope. I have even written a real time microkernel. I know more about real time than most of the people I've worked with in a range of jobs traditionally associated with real time applications. I certainly know more about OS operation and real time than you do. However, you so unashamedly display your igorance of such matters that I almost think you're proud to be so ignorant. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Feb 2007 11:43
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <52406$45da6760$cdd084bb$25290(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >Rich Grise wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:01:11 +0000, Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Ken Smith wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>d.086(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Could you please terminate this thread. It's off topic and crossposted > >>>>>>>to sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.electronics.design, sci.med The > >>>>>>>discussion below is only about electronics design. Please start a new > >>>>>>>thread in your own news group and give it a Subject heading > >>>>>>>appropriate to the topic under discussion. Please no more 'Jihad needs > >>>>>>>scientists'. It's offensive. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>That's nice. > >>>>> > >>>>>By posting that you did exactly the thing he was asking you not to do. I > >>>>>really don't see why you did it after all he should get his way about what > >>>>>happens on the usenet shouldn't he? > >>>> > >>>>Oh gee, did I do something wrong? > >>> > >>>Yes, you should be ashamed of your self for continuing to post into this > >>>thread when you were asked by that very important person not to. Such > >>>people need to have their every whim catered too. If not they may may pout > >>>and that would be very bad, I think you would agree. > >>> > >> > >> My newsreader has an "Ignore thread" menu option, but apparently it goes > >> by actual threading, and not subject line. > >> > >> Good-Bye. > >> Rich > > > >It seems the pouters are circling. I think I need more time > >to contemplate what you're promoting here, Ken. This is such > >a serious issue I don't want any possibility of getting it > >wrong. > > Yes, it is certainly worthy of some serious thought. End of life issues > are always complex and full of moral questions. Many people will argue > about when the death of a thread occurs. This can be very hard if the > thread has trollers and spam in it. When a thread dies of spam, posting > activity continues long after the actual death. Trollers tend to stop > very quickly when they sense that no-one will respond to their tripe. > > Most of those who have a religeous point of view, I assume, think of the > thread as merely going to silicon heaven and resting there. Some would > argue that with out the input of new postings, the thread is thrown into > the deep abiss, but I assume this is a small minority. A small sect > called "seeplusplus programmers" just forget the thread ever existed when > they lose the pointer to it. The "lisp programmer" sect has a very > unusual view. They believe that as long as the thread has references to > its self, it will live forever. Aha - with BAH's redefinition of words, she _must_ be in a Forth dialect sect. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |